About Bnesaladur

Bnesaladur’s Comments

I just want to comment on one part of this. The studies showing that physical bookstores offer the advantage of "readers are far more adventurous in their choice of books when in a bookstore than when shopping online."

For me this is true, but the truth is in the why. I am more likely to try different books because I can pick a copy up off the shelf, walk over to the coffee shop that is in the bookstore, buy a coffee, sit down, and read the book. It is a comfortable, cozy environment. It lacks any DRM-like limitations. It is, in fact, encouraged. I don't get to read a pre-selected page or two, but the whole damn book and if I like the book, I buy it, if not, I put it away. I do not buy every book, but I buy a hella lot more than if I cant read it at all (yes that includes the obligatory page or two selected by someone else.) I could go in and read the whole store and not spend a cent yet this is the preferred method of modern guildies. If I was not allowed this freedom, I would not even enter the store because online is easier, so changing this is bad for business.

Now lets take another look at why physical bookstores are selling more. I can read as much as I want before I make my choice and I have no obligation to buy, yet I buy one in three books I look at. I do this because of the freedom and encouragement to find what I want before committing to a purchase, not because of the "bricks and mortar" used to build the store. An online store could use the same principle and if they did book sellers would have to find new ways to spend their massive increase in earnings. Unfortunately, this will not happen because guildies are scared of this type of sales method, mainly because they have been trained to be.

Ultimately, things can be shown both ways but what is important is not the results but how they are obtained, and why.

Oh yeah, and if you really want to whine about Googles contracts, perhaps look into every telecommunication and ISP contract ever written.

Also complaining that Google isnt fair because they are good at what they do is a bad argument. It isnt default that cause this, IE is windows default browser and Bing is IEs default search engine. Guess what, first thing I do when I get new PC? I change it to Google because Google works best.

Personally I like Google. It offers us a well rounded collection of internet resources on top of Google search itself. Now, though, apparently they are a monopoly. idk if the government looked into it but Google works to create ad targeting so that you receive ads you will be interested in, at the same time allowing you to not get targeted ads if they make you feel uncomfortable (privacy invasion).

I really like the part in the list of "Benedelmans" that says that if Google was in a competitive marketplace they would have to provide "high-quality, trustworthy traffic." Basically Google would somehow have to ensure that only people with money, willing and ready to buy would respond to ads; and somehow to ensure that all the people who filled that category would receive the ads. I don't think I like the idea of anyone, especially advertisers knowing everything I want, how much money I have, and whether I am ready to buy. I don't mind them knowing which ads I read though, but its a fine line between privacy invasion and doing their job.

"they are so focused on stopping the "bad" people that the entire experience is being lessened for the "good" customers" --TAC

This is like arresting people and throwing them in away for life, JUST IN CASE they might be criminals. All steps must be taken to protect the innocent. Who needs proof if they have the potential to be a criminal. Are they smart? Have they ever been upset with their government? Criminal, accuse them and throw them away. Or even better, gather a lot of random people up in mass and accuse them all and offer them the chance to pay you $10K to be let off. Its a good way to better the economy. (We can even pretend we are making people safer at the same time. Some might actually believe us.)

Mike is "curious which thing people think will damage his reputation more. Getting fired by a big law firm... or then turning around suing that firm for $77 million?"

I'm more curious how a first year law associate figures that, as a result of getting himself fired by insulting management, he is owed $2.55 million in lost income while he would only be making, at best, $90k/year.

"... if you leave your keys in your car, and someone takes it and drives it into someone’s fence, you’re at least partially responsible for the damage. If the car thief runs off, who should pay for the damage? The fence owner or you? It would seem that between those two parties, you would be more responsible than the fence owner. You wouldn’t say that the fence owner should have built a better fence, would you?"

Actually, I think the fence owner should have considered that by building a fence there it might get hit. Its their fault your car got damaged and they should pay to fix it. Cheap bastards, getting expensive lawyers and trying to get off of paying to fix my car.

Mike,
I respect your views but on this I must disagree. While I believe you are mostly right, that one should not be held liable for crimes committed USING their service, that safe harbor should only apply if they have taken reasonable steps, where possible, to ensure said crimes can be stopped before they happen.

With, let us say for example, gun manufacturers, safeties are in built in for protection against misuse, but their is nothing really they can do over where the gun is pointed. With digital services, they can build in a safety to reasonably protect the public as well. It is definitely not the same as pulling the trigger, or in this case, selling a child to be a sex slave, but I'm suggesting a fine for not having a safety built in. While steps could be taken to mitigate the protection it provides but I think it needs a safety. It may make it harder to complete the transaction.

This whole concept of copyrighting photography, with the exception of selling photographs of copyrighted artwork, is stupid. Essentially you are attempting to copyright different poses of living creatures, say humans, or even nature itself. Does the line even stop there? Are we eventually going to have to pay to stand in certain ways because its an infringement? As stupid as it sounds, what if someone sees you and it looks the same as a existing work? What if a photograph gets taken?

Photography itself is not art, even though you can hold the camera in different ways and lighting may produce different results. Yet it is simply physics. If you take a photograph and digitally modify it however, that is art. So unless you have two pictures that look similar and then are both modified in the same way, all you have is a near exact representation of the world, based on physics not art. Any other definition is limiting as the natural extension leads to things like no longer being allowed to take pictures of your kids birthday party because someone else did first.

In closing, photography is not about art, although as stated earlier modifying the photographs can be artistic. Photography is about the storage of memories. Its about showing to others 'what you SAW' not 'what your CREATED'.

Probably is and the only way he can feel cool is by coming here and bashing Mike rather than becoming involved in an intelligent debate. I don't agree with everyone who posts here but most of them at least have intelligent posts that can be disagreed with intelligently. It is one thing to disagree, another to disagree and toss around some harassment but something different entirely to prove your lack of intellect by tossing around harassment and failing to even provide an argument. The last can only be responded too with disdain.

Where are all the people we are proud to be associated with, people who are on the bottom. These people, the ones we are proud to be grouped with, should be given the reins. Perhaps we could create a fourth stream of government, beside legislative, executive and judicial, that focuses on oversight of all the rest. Any group in the government currently trying to do so fails with such constancy that I would be embarrassed to count myself as part thereof.

Very few of us do not love our country, in fact probably all here do, but our leadership has been a train wreck for years, maybe even decades. We need to realize that, and take action. Volunteer your time for the benefit of your town or country. If you are a lawyer, do some pro bono. If you have the option, join your volunteer fire department. Whatever it is, simple actions can have powerful effects on all, including yourself. And when you get the chance, argue against the laws you disapprove of and take part in your country like you are doing now. Stand strong for what you believe, and for your country.

When the rules he is being a stickler about may be constitutional infractions or other illegal activities then more power to him. That is the trouble with any Intelligence Organization, that they believe that because they can redact information and make it classified, they can do whatever they what and when questioned just say its classified in the interests of national security and shut the case down. Of course the public just has to accept them at their word, a currency that holds little weight anymore due to many lies from them over a long period of time. Also being an annoying rules stickler is not a criterion for prosecution, termination of employ, or even swatting. In fact he likely has grounds for a civil action case against the NSA for defamation that will never see the light of a court room as it will be classified that this even took place.

"Random message board comments are NOT journalism and should NOT be protected as such."

The trouble is, I think, not so much whether or not it was posted on a message board, random or not, but how she posted it. If she came out and said:
person-x is a douchebag and should go to jail",
that is not journalism.
If, however, she said:
"Person-x has committed these crimes as evidenced by this evidence which is punishable under this law by this penalty, etc. etc. etc."
She is coming forth with a news story that has evidential support and merit. Work she has provided, through research and effort on her part, in order to develop a story based on fact on the actions of person-x, is what makes this a story. The case should have been over when she showed the judge, with private information redacted as allowed by the 1st amendment, her story and evidence.

Effort was put into this to make a story, as such she likely has research into her story. That makes it journalism. This is not someone saying I want to claim journalistic privilege so I do not get in trouble. That argument is not what is at hand here and shouldn't even come up. This is I am a journalist, I worked hard to develop a news story, now I am being accused of not being such despite all my work into creating this story because the point of publish is not "acceptable". Ultimately, who cares as long as the story has been researched and the story follows that research.

You know restricting competition is the direction they want to take I vehemently disagree but if they do go that route there should be some serious salary caps put in place. The system should force money into research and development in such a way that if big pharm wants to operate this way it will be done in a way that maximizes money going towards innovation and limits salaries and bonuses to CEO's, presidents, COO's, CFO's, department leads etc. Expand the research department significantly with all that extra money. Now I am not saying we should pay the researchers minimum wage, they spent a lot of time and money to get where they are and we can afford to reward that effort but lets reward the people doing the work rather than the ones signing off on it.

You beter copyright that plot line before someone else uses it. Make sure you come up with every possible variation and do some copyrighting on those as well ;)

Really though, I am trying to go to NAIT, unfortunately I simply can not afford too because of the costs. I get a lot of "well take out a loan" but in the words of the non-original AC, that "is not a solution." I know the loans are designed for students but the fact of the matter is simply that a system designed to force people into debt creates an unstable economic system as a whole. Cheaper books and coursepacks would be a start in taking the debt load off of people trying to develop their skills to help improve the world.

I hear a lot of, as Chris puts it "pissing and moaning", about the so-called piracy of various forms of media. What is not talked about very often is how difficult it is to find older movies, shows, songs or whatever. The laws keep lengthening the copyright terms but nothing is done to ensure that access is not lost. In fact the organizations regularly fail to give access to their media then sue and claim losses when they discover someone downloaded it.

It is frustrating. No sales are being lost, the product is not available for sale by anybody. Yet when a copy is downloaded and discovered you can bet you will hear about how families are going hungry because someone downloaded said product. Perhaps if common sense was legally enforced there would not be an issue.

@ abc gum - Ya no kidding. Anytime a system designed to facilitate the spread of potentially private information fails to give the users protection of privacy by default, there is a problem. Per post public access should be available as an opt-in with the ability to opt-out later with warnings to the effect that once made public opting out may not prevent its access. Full public opt-in access should be used carefully and definitely not be on by default; also warnings should be in place to notify the user that it is on to prevent it being changed accidentally.

@ Prinsoner201 - lol.

@ PrometheeFeu - It is cool that they contacted you and apologized and explained themselves, despite failing to give you a deal. Understandable I guess, in a sense. Even more cool that they worked with you rather than suing you and being douche-bags.